Corrections Policy
This site covers a specialist, evolving scientific field. We will get some things wrong, some sources will be superseded by newer research, and some wording will be sharper in hindsight than it was when first written. We would rather be corrected than stay wrong.
How to submit a correction
Email info@cosmeticpeat.org or use the contact form. Please include:
- The URL of the page in question
- The specific claim or statement you believe is wrong, outdated, or overstated
- Where possible, a citation or source supporting the correction
How corrections are reviewed
Scientific corrections are checked against our internal reference layer and, where relevant, against the original cited paper before any change is made. We do not make a change on request alone — we verify it. If the correction is valid, we update the page and, where the change is material, note what changed and when directly on the affected page.
Typo fixes, broken links, and formatting issues are corrected on sight without a review cycle.
What counts as a material correction
A material correction changes the substance of a claim — for example, softening an overstated result, correcting a misattributed finding, updating an evidence grade in light of new research, or removing a claim whose source turns out not to support it. These are the corrections we take most seriously, and the ones most worth documenting.
Correction log
Material corrections are listed here, newest first.
16 September 2026 — citation withdrawn as unverifiable
During a link audit we found that one entry in our research library, listed as "Karagülle & Karagülle (2007), Effectiveness of Peloid Therapy in Knee Osteoarthritis, Rheumatology International 27(6)", could not be verified. Its DOI resolved nowhere, PubMed has no such paper, and the cited journal pages are occupied by a different study by different authors. We have removed the entry and every reference to it.
The four claims that cited it (balneotherapy and mud packs for joint inflammation; the anti-inflammatory and thermal-retention mechanisms) now cite two verified randomised trials instead: Cantarini et al. 2007 (mud packs plus mineral baths versus short-wave therapy in knee osteoarthritis) and Odabasi et al. 2008 (heat-matched mud pack trial isolating a chemical effect). No evidence strength rating changed, because each claim already had independent support from other sources. Prose on six pages that named the withdrawn paper was rewritten.
See also our Editorial Policy and Scientific Review Policy.